Allowed¶7

Rama S/O Annappa Savasuddi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2025CRL.P/100215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C. of charge sheet in Spl.C.291/2021 (Raibag P.S. Crime 246/2021), IPC 143/147/323/353/504/506 r/w 149 and SC/ST Act 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)/(v); SC/ST Act offences invoked against complainant not belonging to SC/ST community — cognizance without jurisdiction; omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts per accused; counterblast FIR to coerce settlement after complaint of financial irregularities in Gram Panchayat works and RTI queries; abuse of process; Raibag, Belagavi, Byakud; Hemant Chandangoudar J; NC: 2025:KHC-D:2589.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned proceedings in Special Case No.291/2021 (arising out of Raibag P.S. Crime No.246/2021) pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, quashed. ¶7

Rama S/O Annappa Savasuddi Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned proceedings in Special Case No.291/2021 (arising out of Raibag P.S. Crime No.246/2021) pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, quashed.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the invocation of offences under the SC/ST Act against a complainant who does not belong to the SC/ST community is legally tenable, and whether the cognizance taken by the trial court thereon was valid. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The complainant (respondent No.2) does not belong to the SC/ST community; therefore, the invocation of offences under the SC/ST Act is legally untenable.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The cognizance taken by the trial court on the SC/ST Act offences is without jurisdiction.

¶6

Key takeaways

The statements of the complainant and eyewitnesses reveal only general and omnibus allegations; there are no specific overt acts attributed to each of the petitioners.ratio¶6
The dispute originates from an enquiry initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioners against the complainant regarding financial irregularities.ratio¶6
The present criminal case appears to have been filed as a counterblast to settle scores and exert pressure on the petitioners to coerce a settlement.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C.) – Quashing. Seven agriculturists of Bommanal village (accused Nos.1–7) were charge-sheeted in Spl.Case No.291/2021 (Raibag P.S. Crime No.246/2021) under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, following an alleged incident at the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Taluk Panchayat, Raibag, during an enquiry ordered into the petitioners' complaint of financial irregularities in Gram Panchayat works at Byakud. Held: (i) the complainant (respondent No.2, a Panchayat Development Officer) does not belong to the SC/ST community, so the invocation of SC/ST Act offences is legally untenable and the trial court's cognizance thereon is without jurisdiction; (ii) the complainant's and eyewitnesses' statements contain only general and omnibus allegations, with no specific overt act attributed to any petitioner; (iii) the criminal case appears to be a counterblast to settle scores and coerce a settlement, and its continuation would be an abuse of the process of law. Petition allowed; impugned proceedings quashed. — Hemant Chandangoudar J, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, 10.02.2025 [NC: 2025:KHC-D:2589].

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 100215 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100215 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

RAMA S/O. ANNAPPA SAVASUDDI AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶6

LAGAMA @ LAGAMANNA S/O. ANNAPPA SAVASUDDI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶7

VITTAL S/O. ANNAPPA SAVASUDDI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶8

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:38 +0530

¶9

MARUTI S/O. SHANKAR PATIL AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶10

RAJU S/O. RAYAPPA BANASAGE AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶11

SHIVU @ SHIVANAND S/O. MARUTI SARAVAR AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶12

PRAVEEN S/O. RAJU DANGER AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶13

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 100215 of 2022

¶14

¶15

R/O. BOMMANAL, VILLAGE-591317 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY POLICE INSPECTOR, RAIBAG POLICE STATION, RAIBAG-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶20

ANNASAHEB S/O. PARIS KUPPANATTI AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, R/O. OFFICE OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, BYAKUD-591317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT F.GOUDAR, ADV. FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL.CASE NO. 291/2021 (RAIBAG P.S.CRIME NO.246/2021) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 323, 353, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT) ACT, 1989 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CASE NO.291/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 100215 of 2022

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 3(1)(r & s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

¶29

The prosecution alleges that petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 frequently sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) regarding the works carried out in the Gram Panchayat. The complainant, a government official, provided the requested information. The petitioners subsequently lodged a complaint before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi, alleging misappropriation of funds and irregularities in the execution of Gram Panchayat works at Byakud. In response, the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Raibag, directed the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, Raibag, to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. The Assistant Executive Engineer issued a notice to the petitioners, requiring their presence on 08.10.2021 at the Gram Panchayat Office, Byakud, for the enquiry.

¶30

It is alleged that the petitioners, along with 10-12 other individuals, went to the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Taluk Panchayat, Raibag, and threatened the complainant, demanding that the enquiry not be conducted. The petitioners allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language with reference to his caste and further assaulted one Arun Gadiwaddar.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 100215 of 2022

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no material evidence to establish that Arun Gadiwaddar belongs to the SC/ST community, which is a necessary condition to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. He further contended that the allegations against the petitioners are vague and general in nature, without any specific overt act attributed to each petitioner. There is no clear detail as to how, when, and in what manner each petitioner allegedly abused, assaulted, or threatened the complainant. In the absence of such specific allegations, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted based on mere omnibus and generalized allegations.

¶33

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State contended that the chargesheet materials sufficiently disclose the commission of offences by the petitioners. He further submitted that the veracity of the allegations is a matter for trial, and such issues cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the petition.

¶34

Having considered the submissions of both parties and examined the charge-sheet materials, the following aspects emerge:

¶35

• The complainant (respondent No.2) does not belong to the SC/ST community. Therefore, the invocation of offences under the SC/ST Act is legally untenable, and the cognizance taken by the trial court in this regard is without jurisdiction.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 100215 of 2022

¶37

• The statements of the complainant and eyewitnesses reveal only general and omnibus allegations. There are no specific overt acts attributed to each of the petitioners, nor any clear evidence detailing how and in what manner the alleged abuses and assaults occurred.

¶38

• The dispute between the parties originates from an enquiry initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioners against the complainant regarding financial irregularities in Gram Panchayat works. The present criminal case appears to have been filed as a counterblast to settle scores and exert pressure on the petitioners to coerce a settlement.

¶39

• Given the absence of specific allegations and the apparent retaliatory nature of the complaint, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Special Case No.291/2021 (arising out of Raibag P.S. Crime No.246/2021), pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, are hereby quashed.

¶41

Ordered accordingly.

¶42

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶43

JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80

Rama S/O Annappa Savasuddi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama S/O Annappa Savasuddi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt S Anasuyamma Vs Sri S v Babu Reddy

Prabhaiah B Vs the State of Karnataka

K Jayesh Nair Alias Jayas Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Narayana Swamy S/O Buggaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Shantinath Gireppa Badnikayi Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash S/O Babu Kammar Vs Shri Beereshwar Co. Operative Society Ltd. Haliyal